Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Email Featured’

Muslim Migrants FLOOD in Next To George Clooney’s $10M Italian Villa


waving flagAuthored By on January 3, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://joeforamerica.com/2017/01/1000s-migrants-moving-next-door-liberal-george-clooney-madonna-not-happy/

After Hillary Clinton and Obama, Democrats are scrambling to find the next “up and coming” star to worship. They need someone that can compete on Trump’s popularity level with the same TV stardom and name recognition. They may be looking at the Ocean’s 11 star, George Clooney.

The latest odds have him at 100 to 1 to run in 2020. He seems to have even gotten better odds since his marriage to 38-year-old Amal Alamuddin, who represented WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, and is one of the world’s leading human rights specialists.

Clooney’s been a dear friend of Obama’s. He’s a typical Hollywood liberal fanatic and has been a strong supporter and fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton. He’s supported their liberal policies including their policy on illegal immigration. However, with the recent influx of thousands of immigrants into Clooney’s quiet, little, romantic “getaway” town of Lake Como, Italy, he might still be thinking – “too close for comfort”. His neighbors sure are.  Here’s a blast from the past:

3645361900000578-3689928-image-a-29_1468495992744

Lake Como has long been a destination favored by the powerful and wealthy, many of whom are attracted by its stunning lakeside villas built in Roman times.

H/T The Sun:

Roberto Bernasconi, from a local Catholic charity, said: “We are helping them with food, clothing and we are also mounting showers.

“But it is very difficult, we do not know how to welcome all these people. In the Como diocese we have over 2,000 migrants in the facilities – there is no room.”

“I do not know how much longer we can bear the brunt of this mass of people who would like to cross the border but who are not willing to leave Como.”you-mean-rapefugees

The groups of migrants arrive in the area having likely travelled up Italy after landing in the south having crossed the Mediterranean by boat.

Just yesterday nearly 1,000 migrants were saved in six separate rescue operations on the Med.

All six boats – including four rubber dinghies – are believed to have set off from Libya, where criminal gangs charge people thousands to be lead on the perilous crossing.

—-

Many of the thousands of illegal immigrants are coming to Italy from Africa and Europe. They’re camping out until they can afford to pay “smugglers” to head north. It seems those nice, old, quaint, brick streets of Como are beginning to get overrun by Asian men who are hawking umbrellas, flowers, and what not. These same immigrants are sleeping on the streets, in the parks and overrunning the community. Locals are not happy and are protesting, especially against plans to set up camps with tattered tents on the boundaries of Lake Como.

CnROQi-WgAIygXA

Eh! Clooney is probably thinking – What’s a few tattered tents, right?

After all, Clooney’s for big government and believes government should take care of everyone else’s problems.

Did I mention what nice things George had to say about Hillary? 

“…I was very, very, very glad that she was secretary of state and that she was an informed, responsible, smart person,”…

Not surprised, since I did start this article by saying George is a liberal and a dear friend of Obama’s and Hillary’s. They ALL welcome more immigrants – even if it means losing jobs, resources, and the character of our own nation.

george-clooney-lake-como

Again, this would be a perfect time for Clooney who described “The Donald” as a “xenophobic fascist,” to actually put into practice what he preachers and simply open his multi-million dollar lakeside mansion and take in few hundred of those Muslim refugees, then we may actually say he’s a man of his word…we’re waiting George.

Once again, George, I hope you are enjoying your view during the holidays!

Do you want

Obama: “The U.S. Must Give Up Some Of Its Freedoms to the UN”


waving flagBy on December 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://joeforamerica.com/2016/12/obama-u-s-must-give-freedoms-un/

Many Americans are very excited to know Trump’s Inauguration Day is right around the corner. We’ve had enough of Obama’s policies which have weakened America and our military and made us look weak among nations around the world. Not that Obama could care. Afterall, Obama supported Obamacare and wanted a One World government, just like Hillary.

At one of Obama’s last gatherings with other world leaders at the UN, Obama said this:

H/T I Have The Truth:

“…but we have to put our money where our mouths are. And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding — to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations like my own accept constraints,” said Obama. “Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions.”

“But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security. And I think that’s not just true for us.”more-words

WTH!? The United Nations has one goal: Globalization. The UN’s only intention is to bring about new world and economic order and support an international system of governance. The UN doesn’t exist to help the world. We’ve already seen how on many occasions how the UN has failed to protect those that really need protections. It hasn’t stopped genocide or wars.

The UN is about global control. They just want to remove guns and disarm citizens, which is unconstitutional in America. America was founded on the Constitution. In America, citizens have the 2nd Amendment – the right to bear arms, but the UN doesn’t want that. They want “ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT” – no borders. Hence, Obama didn’t care about how many illegals he brought in. He just wanted more. The more the merrier; it makes our country weaker.

obama-clinton-400x225

Obama is a globalist and wanted Americans to surrender the US to the UN. He wanted America to give up our freedoms to achieve UN GOALS! Seriously!

The UN just wants America to dissolves its sovereignty to create a new world order. Obama wanted America to give up freedoms to become part of this ‘One World” government’!

Thank God! We are not heading down that path any longer! Hillary Clinton would have just continued down that same path to “One World” order and government.

One of our Founding Fathers said:

download-1

Aren’t we thankful Americans chose the path of freedom and Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton for President. Clinton would have continued America down Obama’s same path of destruction and “One World” order.  Donald Trump will lead us down the path of greatness and help “Make America Great Again”.

Thank you Americans for electing Donald Trump for our next president!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

merry-christmas

#MAGA

This Is What Happens When the Government Disarms You


waving flagPosted 8 hours ago by

URL of the original posting site: http://politicaloutcast.com/2016/01/this-is-what-happens-when-the-government-disarms-you/#B6poR5yMzUY3mLCg.99

This story enrages me. FOX 2 reports: Horrific playground gang rape has NYPD asking public for help.”

Another crime in a gun free zone.

New York police are looking for five men who forced a father at gunpoint to leave his daughter behind so they could take turns raping her, according to a press release.

The 18-year-old female was with her father at the Osborn Playground in Brooklyn around 9 p.m. Thursday when they were approached by five men, according to a press release from the NYPD. 

One of the men pulled a gun on the father and daughter and demanded that the father leave the area, the press release said.

Then each of the five suspects raped the teenager, according to the NYPD.

“The father returned a short time later with two uniformed police officers,” the press release said. The suspects then quickly fled the park and evaded police capture.Criminals and Dictators

So when people say they need more police protection do the mean they want the police to investigate after they have been killed, raped, or otherwise victimized?

I don’t think so.

The victim was taken to a nearby hospital where she was treated and released, according to the press release.

The article tells us that an NYPD spokesperson said she had cuts on “her arms, neck, and knees” from the attack.

What aggravates me about the reports is the many people telling us that parks need more police. The people of New York are already overtaxed. We need private solutions.

If you wonder why liberals tend to fear and oppose the private ownership of firearms, it is simply another aspect of their superstitious belief in socialism. Just like they believe the government is better at supplying healthcare, they think the government is the best provider of security. And just as happens in any other socialist economy, the resource in question gets misallocated. Some areas of a city get extra protection (in highly visible and politically significant areas) while other areas (poor neighborhoods at night) experience shortages.Disarmed Citizenry

Even apart from corruption and political favoritism, no bureaucracy can claim responsibility for the security of a city and efficiently calculate what amount of police presence and other resources each area needs. The larger the city the more difficult it is to guess what is needed.

Yet that is what New York State and New York City have done. They have assumed a burden they cannot possibly carry. And then they have criminalized the only efficient mechanism that society possesses for providing security wherever it is needed: privately-owned firearms. Every law-abiding father and mother is powerless to defend a child from an attack.

But the ruling class cares much more about protecting their stolen monopoly on power than they care about the people the pretend to care about. Barack Obama never weeps for the many people who die because they have been disarmed by their own government. He weeps in frustration that he can’t push more gun prohibition. He wants all the fathers in Dallas and other cities to also have no option but to run off and find the police while gangs molest their children.

Socialism is always about depriving society of its natural abilities to deal with the peoples’ needs on the basis of the empty promise that the government can do it better. Gun control is just part of the socialist vision.

Picture13 burke Hey Leftist In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Los Angeles Makes It Illegal to Own a Gun That Works


Posted on October 29, 2015 by

Tyranney Alert

The Los Angeles City Council — no collection of constitutional scholars cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgthey — on Tuesday unanimously adopted an ordinance that requires any privately owned handgun to be kept at home, either locked or dismantled so that it does not function. Councilman  Paul Krekorian was behind the vote. Krekorian also recently pushed through an ordinance requiring all clips of more than 10-round capacity to be destroyed.

The Los Angeles Times quoted Krekorian as saying, “It’s unacceptable to live in a country where it’s more dangerous to be a preschooler than to be a police officer — and we can do something about that today.”

Gun Control Supporters croppedThe Times neglected to mention what country Krekorian thinks he’s living in.

Cuz that’s definitely a country you wanna stay away from.

Perhaps I’m just not enlightened, but I’m a bit confused what exactly Krekorian imagines is going on in Los Angeles homes.

I’m getting flashes of scenes involving toddlers out strolling the neighborhood, caps on askew, gold chains hanging from their necks, the theme from “The Sopranos” playing over their iPhones, when some punk from a rival block rolls up on his trike, hauls out a nine and goes to town.

It’s like a scene out of the comic strip “Boondocks.” 

Does Krekorian think that toddlers just spend all their time looking for Dad’s gun, then shooting their friends with it? Or is it that Krekorian foresees a day when the U.N. has banned meat animals and roving burger gangs hunt down the last meat available — little Timmy?Armed

That Krekorian is afraid of guns is assumed, but you would probably be correct to suspect that what he’s really afraid of is the people who elected him to office being able to defend themselves not against criminals but the government.Disarmed CitizenryHey Leftist

And the L.A. City Council might have reason to fear that, having invited illegal aliens of all stripes to rest their weary heads within their sanctuary city limits. So, people who are by definition criminals, who often bring crime with them or engage in crime once they get here, are OK. But people wanting to defend themselves against crime, that’s bad.Criminals and Dictators

Councilman Mitch Englander pitched in with Krekorian, saying, “This is less about gun control and simply more about controlling your gun. It’s really that simple.”

And then, to paraphrase the film “Idiocracy,” government will un-Nazi the world, forever.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Romans 13, Christian Resistance, and the Coming Tyranny


waving flagPosted on May 13, 2015 by

 

 

 

If the Wicked

 

If a nation is not guided by God

 

 

 

 

Good people who don't standIn a previous article I discussed the biblical principle of Christian resistance as it relates to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. As was pointed out in that article, there are examples in the Bible of God’s people resisting direct commands by civil officials based on a very specific set of higher law principles.

Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer wrote, “Let us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because they worshipped Jesus… Nobody cared who worshipped whom as long as the worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal worship of Caesar. The reason Christians were killed was because they were rebels”1 and placed the God of the Bible over the claim that the State and its Caesars were gods. The proof?: “they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).burke

This is an old story that has a modern history. King James of the King James Bible wanted a translation that countered the notes in the 1559 Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. “For example, the margin notes for Daniel 6:22 imply that the commands of kings are to be disobeyed if they conflict with the law of God: ‘For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonored.’”2

 

“Embarkation of the Pilgrims.”

Alister McGrath comments:

“Notice also how the Genevan notes  regularly use the word ‘tyrant’ to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word—a fact noted with approval as much as relief by many royalists at this point.”3

It’s no wonder that King James “authorized a fresh translation of the Bible to undermine the republican implications of the Geneva Bible.”4

Because of its no exception tone, Romans 13 is seen as prohibiting all resistance to the law of the State: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. . . (v. 1). The apostle lists no exceptions. Peter makes a similar statement: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14). Again, no exceptions. This is the same Peter who declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19-20). How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction?Picture1

Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766) states the following in his 1750 sermon “Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers”:

“Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.”There are a number of places in Scripture where one verse speaks in absolute terms and other verses offer exceptions. This is not unusual. If I tell my grandchildren to go outside and play until dinner is ready, I have spoken in absolute terms. They are not to come into the house until they are called. No exceptions are given. What if it rains? What if a large dog enters the yard? Can they enter the house without violating my absolute and no exception command?

They would not be violating my “no exception” command because there are unspoken exceptions. They are assumed to be operating without them having to be repeated each time a new command is given. They have been told on previous occasions to “come in when it’s raining” and “do not get near stray dogs that wander into the yard.”

The Bible operates in the same manner. In one place Jesus says, “All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Does this include the civil magistrate? What about the person who strikes an assailant in self-defense? Is this not an exception to Jesus’ “no exception” statement? Since the Bible already discusses self-defense (Ex. 22:2-3; Deut. 19:21) and the role of the civil magistrate (e.g., Gen. 9:6), there is no need to repeat the exceptions since Jesus’ hearers knew He has anarchy and revolution in mind (e.g., Lev. 19:18), not the just use of the sword. Romans 13:4 explains that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword in certain specified cases. Is this a contradiction? No.Tree of Liberty 03

So then, when we read passages like Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14, we must not neglect the rest of the Bible that is equally authoritative and more fully explains and qualifies these passages.

“Many general statements of Scripture must be open to admitting exceptions even those qualifications are not immediately spelled out. Why are so many generalizations stated without qualification? Because the exact conditions restricting their applicability are not known, or because the “accidental” or providential circumstances that render them inapplicable occur so seldom as to be practically negligible, or because such qualification has already been stipulated in another inscripturated context.”5The Persecution has Begun

In summary, we must recognize that as the State becomes more tyrannical and non-Christian in its social and political policies, conflicts between church and State will multiply. That conflict may make it necessary for Christians to say no to statist laws that will force them to violate the laws of God.freedom

There is an additional reason why Christians must understand the limits of civil jurisdiction and the limits of resistance. Because of a desire to see the current corruption in our own nation reversed, some Christians may take it upon themselves to bring about change by revolutionary means. This is an unbiblical agenda to pursue. There is no warrant in Scripture for a revolutionary spirit.

How Christians go about resisting is a question that needs to be answered in exacting detail. The fact that we have lesser magistrates – state governments, governors, and state constitutions – that can serve as legitimate governing authorities as a means to rebuff civil and judicial tyranny is a viable governing avenue for Christians to take.

OARLogo Picture6

ISIS in America and the Importance of the Second Amendment


waving flagPosted on May 5, 2015 by

The push for gun control is a push for assured destruction. A well-armed American cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgpopulation will stop any attempt by Islamic extremists to coordinate a planned domestic terror attack using conventional weapons. I’m reminded of an exchange between Rick, Humphrey Bogart’s character in the film Casablanca (1942), and Major Heinrik Strasser (Conrad Veidt). It has relevance to what happened in Garland, Texas, where two radical Muslims tried to kill people at a First Amendment freedom of speech event.

The Associated Press reports, “An audio statement on the extremist group’s Al Bayan radio station said that ‘two soldiers of the caliphate’ carried out Sunday’s attack and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future.”

Major Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris?

Rick: It’s not particularly my beloved Paris.

Heinz: Can you imagine us in London?

Rick: When you get there, ask me!

Major Strasser: How about New York?

Rick: Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade.

There are a great many places in the United States that I would advise radical Muslims not to go. At the present time, the United States would be difficult to invade, but if gun-control advocates get their way, it would be Red Dawn (1984 and 2012) with a different ending.

Gotta-loveTexas-600-LI
“GOTTA LOVE TEXAS”

The man who is now leading the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL), once held as a prisoner by the United States, told his captors upon his release, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” This is why the Second Amendment is so important. As long as Americans are armed, there is little chance that Islamists will try to take over America from the inside. They will be hopelessly out armed.

They would have a very hard time where I live since everybody is heavily armed. Often I can hear gunfire. People are practicing. An 83,000-square-foot indoor gun range is in the works down the road from where I live. It’s “expected to Gun clubinclude a 35,000 square-foot indoor sporting clay range, a 13,000 square-foot retail showroom and a 6,000 square-foot restaurant and lounge.”

Any discussion about the Second Amendment must take seriously the Islamic threat. The Second Amendment is not about hunting; it’s about defending ourselves from threats of force.

Consider the following from Breitbart. “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), sent a message to his fellow Sunni supporters to commemorate the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.

Baghdadi wrote:

“Soon, by Allah’s permission, a day will come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master, having honor, being revered, with his head raised high and his dignity preserved. Anyone who dares to offend him will be disciplined, and any hand that reaches out to harm him will be cut off.” 

He went on to say, “This is my advice to you. If you hold to it, you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.”

Europe is vulnerable because gun rights are limited. People in the United States are heavily armed. And that’s a good thing.

OARLogo Picture6

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: